alternate reality?

[jimshiz]

If the verdict would have went the other way, you know questions would have been asked putting GWB in a bad light.

 

answer the question, reply, stay on topic.

off topic? start another thread

[RuntheDamnBall]

Yes, they probably would have. We would already have been in the thick of the war and Saddam would have been captured. I'm not sure how things would be going over there with Kerry vs. Bush, but I don't see what our presidential election would have had to do with their legal proceedings.

 

I am totally missing the connection you're trying to make here. Am I to praise Bush because the Iraqi courts condemned a bad man to death?

[UConn James]

It is the Iraqis who are conducting the trial.

 

From the moment when the soldier took a step and heard a scrape rather than a crunch, this outcome was a certainty, Kerry or no Kerry. And it happened ~ a year before the election.

 

What's your point, Vanessa?

[/dev/null]

Yes

 

Saddam was captured in 2003 and his trial had already started before the 2004 election

[SilverNRed]

Yes, we captured him in November 2003.

[UConn James]

I am totally missing the connection you're trying to make here.

824864[/snapback]

 

I believe the connection is.... [clears throat]....

 

KerryBad!

 

Even for something he, as a theoretical president, or anyone else outside of the Iraqi judicial system, has no political or sovereign control over.

[/dev/null]

I kinda question the timing of the verdict, if you know what i mean

 

tho it may backfire the verdict triggers more violence/unrest/bombings the next 3 days

[true_blue_bill]

If the verdict would have went the other way, you know questions would have been asked putting GWB in a bad light.

 

answer the question, reply, stay on topic.

off topic?  start another thread

824863[/snapback]

I think Rush Limbo is God!!

[jimshiz]

It is the Iraqis who are conducting the trial.

 

From the moment when the soldier took a step and heard a scrape rather than a crunch, this outcome was a certainty, Kerry or no Kerry. And it happened ~ a year before the election.

 

What's your point, Vanessa?

824865[/snapback]

 

I guess my question was too specific for the point.

 

If the verdict had gone the other way, people would have been dumping on GWB right now. And I guess since he was in control before & after the capture, maybe some of it would have been deserved.

 

However, the general point I was trying to make was that if Kerry or anybody from his side were in control, I guess before the capture or even before the war, then there is no way they would have even thought of regime change in Iraq. It would have been status quo. UN resolutions ignored. Saddam in power. More innocent people dying under his rule than the number of innocent people dying today, unfortunately.

 

I don't think Kerry is "bad" just because he is a DEM. I don't buy in to the "lesser of two evils" thing. But, there's a lot of people at the time of the 2004 election who did see GWB as the "lesser of two evils" or in other words - "Kerry bad".

 

I'll do a better job on the wording of my next poll - sorry !!!

[UConn James]

However, the general point I was trying to make was that if Kerry or anybody from his side were in control, I guess before the capture or even before the war, then there is no way they would have even thought of regime change in Iraq.  It would have been status quo.  UN resolutions ignored.  Saddam in power.  More innocent people dying under his rule than the number of innocent people dying today, unfortunately.

824933[/snapback]

 

I would disagree with that last sentence. We don't have hard-and-fast numbers, but I get the sense that pre-invasion, 50-100 headless bodies weren't found in the streets every day in Baghdad alone.

 

We could produce a litany of greivous atrocity the world over --- some of it in the United States --- even just since the worst in human history 60 years ago. We cannot police the world; it blows up in your face. The faster both the left and now the right learn this, the better.

[Bungee Jumper]

I would disagree with that last sentence. We don't have hard-and-fast numbers, but I get the sense that pre-invasion, 50-100 headless bodies weren't found in the streets every day in Baghdad alone.

824949[/snapback]

 

Just because they hid them better.

 

If you want to use civilian casualties as the measure...probably 40k/year "excess deaths" now, versus 50k-70k under Saddam. It's probably "better" now.

 

Personally, I think that's a stupid measure. If you measure it by the psychological impact of the risk of being killed in the street now versus being grabbed off the street and killed in a dungeon under Saddam...probably about equal.

[jimshiz]

I would disagree with that last sentence. We don't have hard-and-fast numbers, but I get the sense that pre-invasion, 50-100 headless bodies weren't found in the streets every day in Baghdad alone.

 

We could produce a litany of greivous atrocity the world over --- some of it in the United States --- even just since the worst in human history 60 years ago. We cannot police the world; it blows up in your face. The faster both the left and now the right learn this, the better.

824949[/snapback]

 

I actually was not talking about the innocent deaths due to terrorists and followers of Saddam Hussein. The only ones to blame for those deaths are the terrorists and followers of Saddam Hussein.

 

I was talking about innocent deaths due to collateral damage in war or a war action being less than those killed under the previous regime.

 

People are saying there are more deaths now BECAUSE of GWB. And I just disagree with that.

[PastaJoe]

However, the general point I was trying to make was that if Kerry or anybody from his side were in control, I guess before the capture or even before the war, then there is no way they would have even thought of regime change in Iraq. 

824933[/snapback]

 

There already was an Iraq resolution before 2000 that supported regime change in Iraq. But it was through support of internal and external Iraqis, not using our own troops who would get caught in the middle of a civil war. Unfortunately it wasn't followed up on by the current administration, and they were convinced by people like Chalibi that we should do the hard work for them.

[chicot]

Just because they hid them better.

 

If you want to use civilian casualties as the measure...probably 40k/year "excess deaths" now, versus 50k-70k under Saddam.  It's probably "better" now. 

 

Personally, I think that's a stupid measure.  If you measure it by the psychological impact of the risk of being killed in the street now versus being grabbed off the street and killed in a dungeon under Saddam...probably about equal.

825004[/snapback]

 

The difference is that under Saddam there were ways that you could minimize your risk of being killed. Don't go into politics or criticize the regime and, by and large, you could get on with your life without a high probability of being killed. The risk of death came from one source only and there were ways and means of reducing your danger.

 

That is not the case now. You can be killed in a hundred and one different ways and for a hundred and one different reasons. You can be a sunni picked up by a shiite deathsquad or a shiite picked up by a sunni deathsquad. You can be killed by religious maniacs for dressing immodestly (if you are a woman), wearing shorts, drinking alcohol etc... You can be blown up by a suicide bomber, shot in the crossfire during a shootout between the US army and the resistance, or murdered by kidnappers (underreported but a very frequent occurrence in "liberated" Iraq). There are so many ways you can be killed now that it is extremely difficult to get on with your life without incurring a very high degree of danger.

[chicot]

I actually was not talking about the innocent deaths due to terrorists and followers of Saddam Hussein.  The only ones to blame for those deaths are the terrorists and followers of Saddam Hussein.

 

I was talking about innocent deaths due to collateral damage in war or a war action being less than those killed under the previous regime.

 

People are saying there are more deaths now BECAUSE of GWB.  And I just disagree with that.

825029[/snapback]

 

Under the Geneva Convention, it is the responsibility of the occupying power to provide security in the occupied nation. The US failed miserably to do this in Iraq and therefore cannot be so completely absolved from blame as you would have it.